Comments (115)

Give Beckel this, he managed to get four conservatives to agree that date rape is rape and that it is a real problem and that it is the man’s fault and not that the woman provoked it or was asking for it. That’s quite the accomplishment!

Listen, you fucking piece of shit, if you were interested in anything other than trolling you could answer your own question. My daughter has taken classes in self-defense and has taught those classes. If a would be rapist gets near her, she knows the techniques to kick them in the groin and then shove their nose cartilage back into their head. Despite this, there is no guaranty that she would not be overwhelmed by a rapist. And the same would hold true even if she had a gun since she is not going to be holding the gun in front of her, aimed and ready, at every time she could be accosted.

A few days before the Super Bowl, one of her best friends was walking from her car to her house in the Garden District. Three teenagers seized her from behind, abducted her, rode around New Orleans raping her several times, forcing her to withdraw money at an ATM and then stealing her car when they dropped her back. It made all the news outlets in New Orleans and the perpetrators have been arrested. Having a gun wouldn’t have helped her at all. The three guys could have easily overwhelmed her before she had the chance to pull it from her purse and pull the safety. Arming more people isn’t going to stop crimes like this.

But you obviously don’t give a rat’s ass about victims of crime. You just want to make your stupid points about “liberals”. Let me say it again – fuck you and your kind.

“And the same would hold true even if she had a gun since she is not going to be holding the gun in front of her, aimed and ready, at every time she could be accosted.”

Exactly. Excepting cases of date-rape in which the victim might be intoxicated or otherwise drugged, rape is almost always a sudden, brutal surprise. A rape victim with a gun on her person is just more likely to be shot by the rapist— with her own gun.

WRT to the resident super-troll, it seems fairly obvious that he/she/it (say it fast and it sounds just like what he regularly does all over this blog!) is just a right-wing nutbag. But he is so good (and I mean just in the sense of paradigmatic) at what he does, I have come up with a new theory. He is actually a decent liberal fellow who posts to make everyone here, with their sense of humor and liberal intelligence (is there any other kind?), look good by comparison.

Local politicians and anti-gun campaigners have reacted with anger at the news that the officers will carry Heckler & Koch MP5 submachine guns – capable of firing up to 800 rounds-per-minute – and Glock semi-automatic pistols.

But I wouldn’t expect you to understand my point, since you’re a complete idiot.

Just in case, though, my point is this: You nimrods like to talk about how more guns will keep everyone safer. Nancy Lanza is a good example of a woman whose ownership of guns did not keep her safe from harm. Indeed, it was her ownership of those guns that cost her her life.

Everyone should (and does) have the right to defend themselves. Your problem is your belief that having more guns in society would make it easier for people to defend themselves, rather than it making no difference (or maybe even making it harder) in the aggregate while increasing other negative outcomes, like accidents or collateral damage.

no police dept. that i’m aware of has ever suggested that women, either on college campuses, or elsewhere, arm themselves with guns, for self-protection. the exact opposite: they suggest mace, a loud whistle, walking in pairs, being aware of your surroundings, self-defense courses (judo, karate, etc) etc. the reason they don’t suggest guns, is because the odds are great that they’ll be taken and used against you, assuming you haven’t shot yourself first.

my wife attended a predominently female school, in an urban environment, in the early 80’s. she lived on campus, but the campus wasn’t secured, anyone could drive or walk in. the advice above is what she, and all the students were given, by both the city & campus police. we still live in the city, and that advice hasn’t changed, in the nearly 30 years since she graduated.

It is worth noting that many police departments are exceptionally wrong about what college students should do to protect themselves against rape, but not for any of the reasons that Jenny is pretending to care about.

The police don’t carry guns for self-defense. They carry them to allow them to subdue, disarm, or shoot others in the process of enforcing the law and keeping the peace, not merely protecting themselves.

Since police get shot and otherwise assaulted all the bloody time, looking to their habits to minimize one’s chances of being harmed by an assailant is really, really stupid.

Ford was admirably providing adequate male compensation as early as 1968 with the Mustang gt500. Then there was the ridiculous overcompensation of the 1969 GTO, the male equivalent of FF breast implants.

Also, no. Rape doesn’t ‘happen’. Rape is perpetrated. By rapists. This statement indicates that you don’t actually understand, you’re just pretending to because you suddenly find it rhetorically convenient.

There’s really no good alternative to firearms. If there were, professionals such as military and police would be using them instead.

?

Pepper spray, which btw also burns the human junk when applied topically. Pretty hard to rape with burning junk. Obviously you retract all your related statments in light of this glaringly obvious answer, right?

Cops someitmes carry pepper spray, but it’s not effective on everyone. They also may carry a baton.
But they haven’t substituted any of these for firearms.

It must be irritating to you to have to take one position on how horrible rape is and how bad a crime against persons it truly is (which I also believe) and then take the position that you should restrict women from choosing the most effective and proven defense available.

I don’t have that problem. I want women to have choice. I’m not trying to restrict anyone’s choice.

While there are certainly people who think that nobody should be able to have any sort of gun at all, that is not the mainstream liberal position. The mainstream liberal position does worry abut the rapist having easy access to guns too, though. The mainstream liberal position, AFAIK, is also okay with women having mace or taking self-defense classes.

The thing is, though, most rapes, aren’t by strangers in the bushes (speaking both from data and from my experience as a rape crisis counselor here). They’re by people that the victims thought loved them or thought were their friends. They’re by family members. They’re by people who drug the victims’ drinks, or deliberately get them drunk so they won’t resist. They’re by people who gained your trust. They’re by people in a position of power over you who might have more social credibility than you – your coach, your teacher, your priest, your therapist, your father. A gun doesn’t do any good for someone who is drugged, and it would be pretty hard for a lot of people to use lethal force on someone who they’d cared about until then, who might be a family member, even in a rape situation. And of course, if the rapist manages to get the gun, you’re in an even worse situation than you were to start with.

A right is not really up for grabs. It doesn’t have to be justified. That’s what makes it a right.

Deal with it.

If a woman wants to carry a gun and she’s otherwise qualified (not crazy or felon), then I want *her* to make that decisions for herself as a free person and not have those who think they know what’s best for her foisting their ideology on her. It’s called freedom and rights.

I’m all for reasonable restrictions…and we have reasonable restrictions already.

We restrict lawful ownership to those who are not crazy or with criminal backgrounds.
We restrict machineguns and destructive devices only to certain individuals that qualify for them.

That being said, I don’t see the reasonableness of restricting an otherwise qualified person the right to bear arms arbitrarily in one public place, but not others simply because others don’t approve of her exercising her civil rights…

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. – Antonin Scalia

It’s not surprising. The whole “pancakes” business is because of this behavior.

He was repeatedly made the fool, but would ignore the arguments made against him. He would then make the same arguments again in another thread, knowing full well that he had already been refuted. He is fundamentally dishonest and unworthy of dialog.

The pancakes bit is very good. It’s tempting, when he says something repugnant and easily refutable to engage him, but it does no good.

Just give him pancakes until he creates yet another pseudonym which will gain the benefit of the doubt until we recognize him again for what he is.

I am actually vaguely optimistic about what is going on at Fox/ Newscorp. The Rupert is fading fast. There is, I believe, a power struggle going on behind the scenes involving the progeny and Wendy. Wendy is a liberal. Much depends on the old bastard’s will.

I can only suspect that he was thinking of “campus” as meaning “classrooms”, as opposed to thinking of it as meaning the entire spectrum of locations connected to a college, such as dorm rooms, team buses, frat houses, etc.

Not that sex never happens in classrooms. (Or offices, right SEK?) And where sex can happen, rape can happen.

Just remember this: On February 19th, 1942 FDR violated The Constitution, and ordered the rounding up of over 100,000 people who were sent into camps on American soil — more than half of ‘em were American Citizens.

It. Happened. In. America.

The federal government imprisoned its own citizens without trial, without suspicion, without due process of law and without evidence.

The federal government also dispossessed them of every worldly thing they owned that was not carried in their hands at the time they were rounded up.